Jump to content


- - - -


Photo
- - - - -

Verse 21:30, Big Bang, Imam Baqir's Hadith


40 replies to this topic

#26 fyst

fyst

    Tesseract

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,674 posts
  • Location:Canada
  • Religion:Shi'i

Posted 09 February 2009 - 08:00 PM

21.30.

This verse does nothing of the sort.


But if you believe otherwise, then its your burden to provide an alternative ayat.

You are wrong in both assumptions - that the burden rests on me; and that an alternative ayah exists.




fyst, why did you skip over my post ? I'll post it again just in case you missed it:

fyst: There are verses that can be interpreted in a manner to suggest that the Quran is referring to an expanding universe, but there is nothing in there that suggests the event of Big Bang.
The Persian Shah: The latter is a logical deduction of the former. Note that the same is the reasoning of the scientists (i.e. extrapolation of the latter fact to achieve the former one)..


The "point of origin" has not been directly observed by the scientists either. This verse quite clearly & undeniably refers to the expansion of the universe & hence the Big Bang.

Oh, I hadn't read this post. I didn't see my name on the quoted post, so I assumed it wasn't directed towards me.

There is nothing in the Qur'an that suggests an expanding universe. The verse that is quotes refers to the separation of the heavens from the earth. Saying that this refers to an expanding universe is invalid on several counts:

First, you cannot conclude from this that the reference is to an expanding universe, since it could also mean the separation of the skies from the planet earth, as the ahadith used in the Puya exegesis and al-Mizan claim.

Second, the verse talks about an event in the past. It does not say that the heavens and the earth are separating continually from each other. It just says that they were separated. And thus it is not possible to conclude from this verse that the universe has been expanding continually, and thus must have been dense and hot a long time ago.

Finally, the hadith used here in the exegesis has been deemed reliable by both Ayatullah Puya and Allamah Tabatabai. The version of the hadith that I quoted on the other thread from al-Mizan is narrated by Imam Sadiq, as opposed to the majhool one that Jondab has referenced. So this means that there are multiple chains of this hadith, which makes it more reliable than a single majhool chain. Secondly, there is a very unique method of authentication that is used by Shi'a scholars. The Imams have advised that if a hadith complements the Qur'an, then accept it, and if it contradicts the Qur'an, then reject it. No reference to the chain necessary. So even though the hadith referred to by Jondab has a majhool chain, we see that it is in accordance to the Qur'an. See, the entire verse is:

[21:30] Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

So right after this part that was quoted earlier, we have the reference to all living beings made of water. The hadith that was quoted by Allamah Tabatabai and Puya has Imam Sadiq and Imam Baqir explaining how this separation has to do with the sky of the earth separating from the earth so that it was possible for it to rain and thus plants could grow. So the hadith here does complement the verse, which also refers to water being needed for living beings. So even though the hadith (and its different versions) may have majhool chains, it may still be true, since it complements the Quran (and since not all majhool chains mean that the hadith is false).


That doesn't even make sense. How can it refer to the universe in a "metaphysical sense" ? What possible interpretation do you derive from that ?

I didn't say "figurative", I said "metaphysical". How many skies are there according to science? Just one. So if this verse speaks of multiple skies, then it is referring to those skies as well that are not physically detectable. This would make them metaphysical.


Furthermore, even if it could, what reason do you have for neglecting the literal (zahir) aspect of it ?

Which zahir aspect did I reject? You are confused. I said it has a metaphysical meaning, which means it refers to things that are not directly physically accessible through science. For example, reference to angels and jinns in the Qur'an is metaphysical. Since scientific methods cannot detect these beings. In the same way scientific experiments cannot detect the multiple heavens, so this verse is referring to metaphysical phenomena.


Your unsupported restriction of the ayat of the Qur`an to their "metaphysical sense" is completely invalid. See the above article.

Have you read that article??? It has nothing to do with whether there are metaphysical aspects to the Qur'an. It is simply speaking about not rejecting the literal meaning of the Qur'anic verses. The article is elaborating on the literal/figurative interpretation issue. "Metaphysical" is not the antonym of "literal".

#27 simplymoja

simplymoja

    The Road Less Travelled

  • Banned
  • 734 posts
  • Location:Ms Pacman's Bosom
  • Interests:Sports, Religion, Politics

Posted 10 February 2009 - 01:45 AM

This verse does nothing of the sort.

You are wrong in both assumptions - that the burden rests on me; and that an alternative ayah exists.



Just saying no doesnt make your case what so ever.

Allah guides us to the values of "bring forth your proof if you speak the truth". If Allah by His OWN claim is the Originator of the Universe, then Allah must produce the proof of the origin of the Universe. If you reject 21.30 which is within your right, then an aternative must be produced to corroborate 2.117. If you do not have an idea of an alternative to 21.30, then just keep quiet before you make your grave an even more hostile environment.


And it makes both my assumptions safe and sound.

#28 SoRoUsH

SoRoUsH

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,987 posts
  • Interests:Unveiling The Light

Posted 10 February 2009 - 04:03 AM

Correct.

Yes, heavens and earths does imply the universe, but only in the metaphysical (Islamic) sense, not the scientific one. Since, scientifically speaking, there aren't multiple heavens and earths.

That is exactly my point. The Qur'an is not a scientific book, and neither do the verses under discussion have any scientific import.


I am not sure I understand your conclusion then...

If you agree that Quran does point to the universe by saying Heavens and earths, then this verse can be interpreted as,

Do not those who disbelieve see that the universe was closed up, but We have opened it... (21:30)

And if it could be interpreted this way, and you agree with this, how can this not be considered a clear hint towards the origin was the universe?

#29 The Persian Shah

The Persian Shah

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,391 posts
  • Location:Malakut

Posted 10 February 2009 - 05:43 PM

There is nothing in the Qur'an that suggests an expanding universe.


51:47 AND IT IS We who have built the universe with [Our creative] power; and, verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it.

21:104 On that Day We shall roll up the skies as written scrolls are rolled up; [and] as We brought into being the first creation, so We shall bring it forth anew a promise which We have willed upon Ourselves: for, behold, We are able to do [all things]!

The verse that is quotes refers to the separation of the heavens from the earth. Saying that this refers to an expanding universe is invalid on several counts


You are right, it does not refer to the expanding universe. It refers to the other aspect of the Big Bang which says that all the heavenly bodies were but a single entity. You said yourself that you agreed that this describes the origin of the universe, and not some metaphysical issue, so I don't know what you arguing now.

I didn't say "figurative", I said "metaphysical". How many skies are there according to science? Just one. So if this verse speaks of multiple skies, then it is referring to those skies as well that are not physically detectable. This would make them metaphysical.


Incorrect. There is no necessary relationship between sky as utilised by the scientists, and that which is employed by the Qur`an. The definition of sky you obviously know, but let's have a look at the definition of it as it appears in the Qur`an:

The term sama' ("heaven" or "sky") is applied to anything that is spread like a canopy above any other thing. Thus, the visible skies which stretch like a vault above the earth and form, as it were, its canopy, are called sama': and this is the primary meaning of this term in the Qur'an; in a wider sense, it has the connotation of "cosmic system". As regards the "seven heavens", it is to be borne in mind that in Arabic usage - and apparently in other Semitic languages as well - the number "seven" is often synonymous with "several" (see Lisan al-Arab), just as "seventy" or "seven hundred" often means "many" or "very many" (Taj al-'Arus). This, taken together with the accepted linguistic definition that "every samu' is a sama' with regard to what is below it" (Raghib), may explain the "seven heavens" as denoting the multiplicity of cosmic systems. - For my rendering of thumma, at the beginning of this sentence, as "and", see surah 7, first part of note 43.(Quran Ref: 2:29 )


(As a side note, please remember that the number seven is not literal).

So your dismissal of the remainder of the skies is invalid. The "skies" has been explained in this passage for you.

For a more elaborate proof by Ayatullah Makarem Shirazi & Ayatullah Jafar Subhani, see the following article: Chapter 34: What is meant by ‘seven heavens’?

First, you cannot conclude from this that the reference is to an expanding universe, since it could also mean the separation of the skies from the planet earth, as the ahadith used in the Puya exegesis and al-Mizan claim.

Second, the verse talks about an event in the past. It does not say that the heavens and the earth are separating continually from each other. It just says that they were separated. And thus it is not possible to conclude from this verse that the universe has been expanding continually, and thus must have been dense and hot a long time ago.

Finally, the hadith used here in the exegesis has been deemed reliable by both Ayatullah Puya and Allamah Tabatabai. The version of the hadith that I quoted on the other thread from al-Mizan is narrated by Imam Sadiq, as opposed to the majhool one that Jondab has referenced. So this means that there are multiple chains of this hadith, which makes it more reliable than a single majhool chain. Secondly, there is a very unique method of authentication that is used by Shi'a scholars. The Imams have advised that if a hadith complements the Qur'an, then accept it, and if it contradicts the Qur'an, then reject it. No reference to the chain necessary. So even though the hadith referred to by Jondab has a majhool chain, we see that it is in accordance to the Qur'an. See, the entire verse is:

[21:30] Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

So right after this part that was quoted earlier, we have the reference to all living beings made of water. The hadith that was quoted by Allamah Tabatabai and Puya has Imam Sadiq and Imam Baqir explaining how this separation has to do with the sky of the earth separating from the earth so that it was possible for it to rain and thus plants could grow. So the hadith here does complement the verse, which also refers to water being needed for living beings. So even though the hadith (and its different versions) may have majhool chains, it may still be true, since it complements the Quran (and since not all majhool chains mean that the hadith is false).


I don't know why are you now backing this hadeeth, since previously you conceded that it could not be applicable to this ayah. Post #72 of the other thread. You even explain it away yourself later on.

Have you read that article??? It has nothing to do with whether there are metaphysical aspects to the Qur'an. It is simply speaking about not rejecting the literal meaning of the Qur'anic verses. The article is elaborating on the literal/figurative interpretation issue. "Metaphysical" is not the antonym of "literal".


Exactly. The purport of the article was about not rejecting the literal meaning of the Qur'anic verses which you correctly identified. And you have nothing to back your view that the heavens & earths cannot be taken literally, thus concluding that they must be taken metaphysically. Even the `ulema accept this view.

#30 fyst

fyst

    Tesseract

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,674 posts
  • Location:Canada
  • Religion:Shi'i

Posted 10 February 2009 - 11:09 PM

Just saying no doesnt make your case what so ever.

And just saying 'yes' doesn't make your case either.

If Allah by His OWN claim is the Originator of the Universe, then Allah must produce the proof of the origin of the Universe.

Nonsense. There is no such requirement to "produce the proof of the origin of the Universe". You have just made that up.


And it makes both my assumptions safe and sound.

Your assumptions are a farce. You are simply expressing your unsubstantiated beliefs as your argument.



And if it could be interpreted this way, and you agree with this, how can this not be considered a clear hint towards the origin was the universe?

Because it says nothing about the origin of the universe, let alone the Big Bang. The opening of the universe and the origin of the universe are not the same thing.



51:47 AND IT IS We who have built the universe with [Our creative] power; and, verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it.

You are using the M Asad translation, which is blatantly wrong. No other translation uses the word "universe" as a translation of 'samaa', and none mention any "expanding" either:

[Shakir 51:47] And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample.
[Yusufali 51:47] With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace.
[Pickthal 51:47] We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof).

M Asad is also one of those Muslims who try to twist Quranic ayah to make them fit with modern science. The verse explicitly says samaa, which means 'heavens' or 'skies', not "universe".


21:104 On that Day We shall roll up the skies as written scrolls are rolled up; [and] as We brought into being the first creation, so We shall bring it forth anew a promise which We have willed upon Ourselves: for, behold, We are able to do [all things]!

Utterly irrelevant. Says nothing about the expansion of the universe.


It refers to the other aspect of the Big Bang which says that all the heavenly bodies were but a single entity.

No, it doesn't. It refers to the Earth and its sky being joined together so that rain wasn't possible.


You said yourself that you agreed that this describes the origin of the universe, and not some metaphysical issue, so I don't know what you arguing now.

Nonsense. I never said it described the origin of the universe.


Incorrect. There is no necessary relationship between sky as utilised by the scientists, and that which is employed by the Qur`an.

That is exactly what I'm saying. There is no relationship. You haven't even tried to understand what I wrote and are just wasting my time.



So your dismissal of the remainder of the skies is invalid. The "skies" has been explained in this passage for you.

For a more elaborate proof by Ayatullah Makarem Shirazi & Ayatullah Jafar Subhani, see the following article: Chapter 34: What is meant by ‘seven heavens’?

If you had read the article yourself, you would have seen the corroboration of what I was saying. It states:

" “We have adorned the nearest heaven with an adornment, the stars,”[47]

With this verse it is known that, all the stars are in the first heaven. "


So, yes, dismissal of the rest of the skies as metaphysical is valid.



I don't know why are you now backing this hadeeth, since previously you conceded that it could not be applicable to this ayah. Post #72 of the other thread.

More nonsense. I never said this hadith was not applicable to the ayah. You're just making stuff up now.


Exactly. The purport of the article was about not rejecting the literal meaning of the Qur'anic verses which you correctly identified. And you have nothing to back your view that the heavens & earths cannot be taken literally, thus concluding that they must be taken metaphysically.

Did you not read my post? I'm saying that, yes, the verse is BOTH literal and metaphysical. I explicitly said: "Which zahir aspect did I reject? You are confused." What part of that do you not understand? Read my post next time and don't waste my time.

#31 simplymoja

simplymoja

    The Road Less Travelled

  • Banned
  • 734 posts
  • Location:Ms Pacman's Bosom
  • Interests:Sports, Religion, Politics

Posted 11 February 2009 - 12:09 AM

Nonsense. There is no such requirement to "produce the proof of the origin of the Universe". You have just made that up.


I have just made that up? :wacko:

I am hopelessly aghast at your notion that Allah does not have to produce proof. Maybe we are reading a different Quran. Mine states:


[Shakir 4:174] O people! surely there has come to you manifest proof from your Lord and We have sent to you clear light.

[Yusufali 4:174] O mankind! verily there hath come to you a convincing proof from your Lord: For We have sent unto you a light (that is) manifest.

[Pickthal 4:174] O mankind! Now hath a proof from your Lord come unto you, and We have sent down unto you a clear light;


Religion is a competitive environment. If Islam is competing with other Religions on Creation then surely, Allah has to prove that He is indeed the Creator of the Universe and of all things therein, including mankind and it would be incumbent upon Allah to deliver proof of the Origin of the Universe.


Oh and the Casimir Effect is the validation of the 21.30. If you break the down the verse in stages, you will understand.


[Shakir 35:3] O men! call to mind the favor of Allah on you; is there any creator besides Allah who gives you sustenance from the heaven and the earth? There is no god but He; whence are you then turned away?

[Yusufali 35:3] O men! Call to mind the grace of Allah unto you! is there a creator, other than Allah, to give you sustenance from heaven or earth? There is no god but He: how then are ye deluded away from the Truth?

[Pickthal 35:3] O mankind! Remember Allah's grace toward you! Is there any creator other than Allah who provideth for you from the sky and the earth? There is no Allah save Him. Whither then are ye turned?

Salaams

#32 The Persian Shah

The Persian Shah

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,391 posts
  • Location:Malakut

Posted 11 February 2009 - 04:29 AM

You are using the M Asad translation, which is blatantly wrong. No other translation uses the word "universe" as a translation of 'samaa', and none mention any "expanding" either:

[Shakir 51:47] And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample.
[Yusufali 51:47] With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace.
[Pickthal 51:47] We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof).

M Asad is also one of those Muslims who try to twist Quranic ayah to make them fit with modern science. The verse explicitly says samaa, which means 'heavens' or 'skies', not "universe".


Are Ayatullah Shirazi and Ayatullah Subhani also of those who try to twist Qur`anic ayah then ?

Lit., "the sky" or "the heaven", which in the Qur`an often has the connotation of "universe" or, in the plural ("the heavens"), of "cosmic systems".(Quran Ref: 51:46 )


Utterly irrelevant. Says nothing about the expansion of the universe.


You mean you really don't see the link when Allah [SWT] compares the universe to that of a scroll being opened & closed up ?

No, it doesn't. It refers to the Earth and its sky being joined together so that rain wasn't possible.


No, it doesn't. I quote the objection to which you happily conceded to last time: It says skies, not sky. Now you are twisting the ayah altogether.

The point I was making was that the separation of the earth and the heaven mentioned in the Qur'an does not necessarily imply the expansion of the universe as stated in the Big Bang theory. As I mentioned earlier, this could be referring to the separation of the dense early earth atmosphere into the sky and earth that we have today. Quite often in the Qur'an the word "heaven" means the sky around the earth (including clouds and all), not the rest of the universe itself. For example:

[2:164] - the water which Allah sendeth down from the sky (Heaven - the Arabic word is the same)

[16:65] - Allah sendeth down water from the sky (Heaven) and therewith reviveth the earth after her death

[30:24] - and sendeth down water from the sky (heaven), and thereby quickeneth the earth after her death


So I don't see how the verse about the separation of the earth and the heaven can accurately be pinned down to the Big Bang, since it could also refer to other physical phenomenon that have occurred in the past.

You made two points here (bold):
1) Seperation =/= Expansion. Whilst this is true, I also said that seperation is a better description of the data we have, than expansion.
2) A different intepretation of "sky". You quoted verses which do intend the more apparent meaning of the word sky, however this is not necessarily the case in this verse, as I could just as easily quote verses which portray the meaning of sky to be other than this. Above all, it says skies and not sky, which means this interpretation of yours [of the word sky] goes out the window.

Yeah, that's true. It's only when the reference is to a single sky that the Qur'an speaks of the clouds and rain. The plural term cannot be attributed to this same "sky".


I thought you already accepted this view, but now you are going back on. So please explain what exactly has changed since then..

Nonsense. I never said it described the origin of the universe.


Read through where we discuss that it highlights some aspects of the Big Bang, but not all of them.

That is exactly what I'm saying. There is no relationship. You haven't even tried to understand what I wrote and are just wasting my time.


:lol:. I strongly suggest you try reading that argument again..

That is not what you are saying. You are saying the opposite: There is a necessary relationship between sky as utilised by the scientists, and that which is employed by the Qur`an.

Look at what I quoted:

How many skies are there according to science? Just one. So if this verse speaks of multiple skies, then it is referring to those skies as well that are not physically detectable. This would make them metaphysical.


Your assuming it has the same meaning as the scientific one, whereas this is not true, as is clear from it's literal defintion.

You contradict yourself, but at least I'm glad you agree with me on this point :)..

If you had read the article yourself, you would have seen the corroboration of what I was saying. It states:

" We have adorned the nearest heaven with an adornment, the stars,[47]

With this verse it is known that, all the stars are in the first heaven. "


So, yes, dismissal of the rest of the skies as metaphysical is valid.


Did you read the entire article ? After listing several views, this proof is provided for view 4:

4. Still, according to the views of some great intellectuals, those small stars, galaxies and Milky Way, which are seen, all are part of the first heaven and beyond that six still bigger worlds are there. And by seven heavens the Holy Quran means all those seven worlds, which exist in the Universe. May be man's present age of scientific knowledge and wisdom has raised the curtain from only one of it, still it is quite possible that in future, as a result of gaining more knowledge, on the back of present perceptible world six great worlds are discovered. Favoring this view we present the following verse as proof.

We have adorned the nearest heaven with an adornment, the stars,[47]

With this verse it is known that, all the stars are in the first heaven. (It should be remembered that in Arabic the word 'Duniya' means 'lower' and near.)


This completely contradicts your view (To begin with, he even explicitly says what it refers to: those small stars, galaxies and Milky Way, which are seen, all are part of the first heaven). I'm suprised how you try and take the ayah and use it as proof for your own view without even thinking about it. You said:

How many skies are there according to science? Just one.


So quite clearly you are referring to the blue sky formed by the atmosphere that every living person can see, not that "which is adorned with stars".

Then you say

So if this verse speaks of multiple skies, then it is referring to those skies as well that are not physically detectable. This would make them metaphysical.


Whereas the Ayatullahs are saying that it is [currently in this day and age] beyond the power of the scientists to see past the first sky. When you say the other skies are not physically detectable, you assume that the scientists can see everything.

More nonsense. I never said this hadith was not applicable to the ayah. You're just making stuff up now.


Echoing the previous objection which you accepted, but now deny:

At the end of this section where he quotes ahadith, the hadith he quotes to elaborate on this section of the verse is taken from al-Ihtijaj, where Umro bin Ubayd asks Imam Sadiq [a] what the "joined" and "separated" (rataq and fataq) mean in that verse. Imam Sadiq [a] replies: If the sky was joined with the earth, then there could never have been any rain, and if the earth had been joined with the sky, no plants would have been able to grow. So Allah separated the sky through rain and the earth through plants.

But in this hadith, the Imam is only speaking about the separation of the one sky from the earth, not all the skies. So this hadith does not really explain that verse in the manner that we want. The Imams always spoke to their followers according to the level of their understanding, so I'm guessing that Imam Sadiq [a] felt that this explanation was enough for Umro bin Ubayd.


Edited by The Persian Shah, 11 February 2009 - 04:35 AM.


#33 fyst

fyst

    Tesseract

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,674 posts
  • Location:Canada
  • Religion:Shi'i

Posted 11 February 2009 - 12:02 PM

I have just made that up?

Yes.


Maybe we are reading a different Quran.

I'm sure we're not. You're just making up your own false conclusions from reading it.


[Shakir 4:174] O people! surely there has come to you manifest proof from your Lord and We have sent to you clear light.

[Yusufali 4:174] O mankind! verily there hath come to you a convincing proof from your Lord: For We have sent unto you a light (that is) manifest.

[Pickthal 4:174] O mankind! Now hath a proof from your Lord come unto you, and We have sent down unto you a clear light;

Absolutely irrelevant.


it would be incumbent upon Allah to deliver proof of the Origin of the Universe.

Nonsense. There is no such incumbency.


Oh and the Casimir Effect is the validation of the 21.30.

More nonsense that you have deluded yourself into believing.



Are Ayatullah Shirazi and Ayatullah Subhani also of those who try to twist Qur`anic ayah then ?

Lit., "the sky" or "the heaven", which in the Qur`an often has the connotation of "universe" or, in the plural ("the heavens"), of "cosmic systems".(Quran Ref: 51:46 )

Where have they said this? It is simply an absurd suggestion. The Quran always refers to 'samaa wal ard', i.e. it refers to 'ard' separately from the heavens. If samaa was the entire universe, then ard would not be referred to separately, since it would be included. Read that reference that you have stated (it is actually 51:47, not 51:46):

[51:47] With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace.
[51:48] And We have spread out the (spacious) earth: How excellently We do spread out!

The earth ('ard') is always distinct from the heavens. Even in that very reference that you used. That is very clear from the Qur'an. I don't think the Ayatullah's have said this. Maybe the translator messed this up.


You mean you really don't see the link when Allah [SWT] compares the universe to that of a scroll being opened & closed up ?

First, the "universe" is not compared. The sky is.

Second, there is no mention of opening up, only of closing.


I thought you already accepted this view, but now you are going back on. So please explain what exactly has changed since then..

That was before I read the hadith in al-Mizan. And the very next part of that same verse talks about water, so it makes more sense if the separation was referring to the atmosphere so that rain is possible.


Read through where we discuss that it highlights some aspects of the Big Bang, but not all of them.

It doesn't highlight any aspect of the Big Bang. Only if you assume that it is referring to the expansion of the universe then can it be said that it does. But that is exactly the matter of contention.



That is not what you are saying. You are saying the opposite: There is a necessary relationship between sky as utilised by the scientists, and that which is employed by the Qur`an.

Look at what I quoted:



Your assuming it has the same meaning as the scientific one, whereas this is not true, as is clear from it's literal defintion.

You contradict yourself, but at least I'm glad you agree with me on this point :)..

Okay, my bad. I misunderstood what you were saying earlier. My point was that this verse is metaphysical since it speaks of multiple skies. Only the first sky is part of this physical universe according to the Qur'an, so the reference to multiple skies makes this verse metaphysical.



Did you read the entire article ? After listing several views, this proof is provided for view 4:

4. Still, according to the views of some great intellectuals, those small stars, galaxies and Milky Way, which are seen, all are part of the first heaven and beyond that six still bigger worlds are there. And by seven heavens the Holy Quran means all those seven worlds, which exist in the Universe. May be man's present age of scientific knowledge and wisdom has raised the curtain from only one of it, still it is quite possible that in future, as a result of gaining more knowledge, on the back of present perceptible world six great worlds are discovered. Favoring this view we present the following verse as proof.

We have adorned the nearest heaven with an adornment, the stars,[47]

With this verse it is known that, all the stars are in the first heaven. (It should be remembered that in Arabic the word 'Duniya' means 'lower' and near.)


This completely contradicts your view (To begin with, he even explicitly says what it refers to: those small stars, galaxies and Milky Way, which are seen, all are part of the first heaven). I'm suprised how you try and take the ayah and use it as proof for your own view without even thinking about it. You said:

How many skies are there according to science? Just one.


So quite clearly you are referring to the blue sky formed by the atmosphere that every living person can see, not that "which is adorned with stars".

Then you say

So if this verse speaks of multiple skies, then it is referring to those skies as well that are not physically detectable. This would make them metaphysical.


Whereas the Ayatullahs are saying that it is [currently in this day and age] beyond the power of the scientists to see past the first sky. When you say the other skies are not physically detectable, you assume that the scientists can see everything.

You make too many false assumptions. No, I was not referring to the blue sky when I asked "How many skies are there according to science?". I was indeed referring to the atmosphere and space combined. There is only one of these according to science. But the scientific and Islamic definition of sky is different so this is moot. But the point that you have completely skipped over is this: Only the first sky is physically detectable. The rest are all metaphysical. The Qur'an is explicit that the lowest sky is the one with the stars. As you clearly agree, we cannot reject the literal meaning of the Qur'anic verses. So there is no option but to conclude that the remaining six skies are not part of this physical universe as described through science. Hence the remaining skies are metaphysical.



Echoing the previous objection which you accepted, but now deny:

Where did I say that this hadith is not applicable to the ayah? You're making things up. I'm clearly agreeing that this hadith is applicable to the ayah, I just don't see how it explains the rest of the skies separating from the earth. I said "this hadith does not really explain that verse in the manner that we want". I did not say that this hadith is "not applicable" to the ayah.

#34 simplymoja

simplymoja

    The Road Less Travelled

  • Banned
  • 734 posts
  • Location:Ms Pacman's Bosom
  • Interests:Sports, Religion, Politics

Posted 11 February 2009 - 12:12 PM

Absolutely irrelevant.


Thank you. We have concluded our discussion.

#35 Cyan_Garamond

Cyan_Garamond

    Member

  • Unregistered
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,367 posts

Posted 20 February 2009 - 05:55 PM

Why were you "shocked" ?

[(Al-Kulayni reports) with his isnad from Zurarah that he said, "I heard Abu Ja'far and Abu 'Abd Allah, may peace be upon them, say: `Verily, God, the Almighty and the Glorious, has delegated the affair of His creatures to His Prophet, to see how they obey him' Then he recited this verse: Take whatever the Messenger brings you and refrain from whatever he forbids you. "

In al-Kafi [al-Kulayni reports] with his isnad from Muhammad ibn Sinan that he said: "I was with Abu Ja'far, the Second, may peace be upon him, when I mentioned before him the disagreement amongst the Shi'ah. Thereat he said, 'O Muhammad, verily God, the Blessed and the Exalted, is ever unique in His Unity. Then He created Muhammad, 'Ali and Fatimah. They remained for a thousand eons, then He created all the things and made them witness their creation and decreed them to obey them, delegating their affairs (i.e. of the creatures) to them. Hence they permit whatever they will and forbid whatever they will and they will not anything except what God, the Exalted, wills.' Then he said, 'O Muhammad, whoever goes beyond this creed transgresses the bounds [of right doctrine] and whoever lags behind perishes, and whoever adheres to it attains [to the truth]. So hold on to it, O Muhammad!' "

http://www.al-islam....tyhadith/32.htm

It seems that Ahle Bait (as) were in control over the management of the universe, they would know such matters as the age of that which they were managing and the number of that which they were managing and so on. By the way, this seems to be Ayatollah Khomeini's opinion unless I've misunderstood.

#36 siraatoaliyinhaqqun

siraatoaliyinhaqqun

    Abd Ali

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,617 posts
  • Location:Allah's Fortress(Imam Ali)
  • Religion:12 Aimma masomeen a.s
  • Interests:Loving Mohammad wa Aale Mohammad

Posted 24 February 2009 - 10:14 AM

if u are seeking an understanding about the creation of universe, I think u should brle reading the book Tawheed al Mufadhal.

Imam Sadiq a.s has praised mufadhal and he a.s said: if all our Shias become like Mufafhal there would be no dispute among them.

Ya Ali Madad

#37 Muhammed Ali

Muhammed Ali

    Member

  • Mods
  • 5,489 posts
  • Location:London
  • Interests:Allah

Posted 17 February 2010 - 09:47 AM

Are there are other ahadith on this verse? Or is Imam Baqir's [s] one the only one that we have?

#38 macisaac

macisaac

    واقفي

  • Unregistered
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,701 posts
  • Location:The City of Champions
  • Religion:الإسلام
  • Interests:Loving my Queen

Posted 17 February 2010 - 10:08 AM

[(Al-Kulayni reports) with his isnad from Zurarah that he said, "I heard Abu Ja'far and Abu 'Abd Allah, may peace be upon them, say: `Verily, God, the Almighty and the Glorious, has delegated the affair of His creatures to His Prophet, to see how they obey him' Then he recited this verse: Take whatever the Messenger brings you and refrain from whatever he forbids you. "

In al-Kafi [al-Kulayni reports] with his isnad from Muhammad ibn Sinan that he said: "I was with Abu Ja'far, the Second, may peace be upon him, when I mentioned before him the disagreement amongst the Shi'ah. Thereat he said, 'O Muhammad, verily God, the Blessed and the Exalted, is ever unique in His Unity. Then He created Muhammad, 'Ali and Fatimah. They remained for a thousand eons, then He created all the things and made them witness their creation and decreed them to obey them, delegating their affairs (i.e. of the creatures) to them. Hence they permit whatever they will and forbid whatever they will and they will not anything except what God, the Exalted, wills.' Then he said, 'O Muhammad, whoever goes beyond this creed transgresses the bounds [of right doctrine] and whoever lags behind perishes, and whoever adheres to it attains [to the truth]. So hold on to it, O Muhammad!' "

http://www.al-islam....tyhadith/32.htm

It seems that Ahle Bait (as) were in control over the management of the universe, they would know such matters as the age of that which they were managing and the number of that which they were managing and so on. By the way, this seems to be Ayatollah Khomeini's opinion unless I've misunderstood.



Old post by an unregistered account I know, but just in case anyone reads this and gets the wrong idea.... What a horribly skewed translation and interpretation of these ahadith! They are referring to tafwid al-amr, delegation of the command, which is the one type of tafwid our ta'ifa believes in. That is, that if the Prophet (pbuh) prohibited or commanded something then that became recognized Shari`a. For instance, the salat were revealed as two rak`at each, but the Prophet (pbuh) increased them to four rak`at for zhuhr, `asr and `isha and three rak`at for maghrib, which is thus binding on us. There are a number of hadiths that talk about this.

The tafwid which is not true though, and is in fact shirk, is tafwid ar-rizq wa 'l-khalq, delegation of sustenance and creation. That is, the mufawwida ghulat believed that Allah created the Ma`sumeen (as) and then delegated to them the creating of the universe and providing sustenance to the creation (sort of like considering them to be demiurges). This is as said though, shirk.

[ 34907 ] 4 ـ وعن تميم بن عبدالله بن تميم ، عن أبيه ، عن أحمد بن علي الأنصاري ، عن يزيد بن عمر الشامي ، عن الرضا ( عليه السلام ) ـ في حديث ـ قال : من زعم أن الله يفعل أفعالنا ثم يعذبنا عليها ، فقد قال بالجبر ، ومن زعم أن الله فوض أمر الخلق والرزق إلى حججه ، فقد قال بالتفويض ، والقائل بالجبر كافر ، والقائل بالتفويض مشرك .

4 – And from Tamim b. `Abdullah b. Tamim from his father from Ahmad b. `Ali al-Ansari from Yazid b. `Umar ash-Shami [Burayd b. `Umayr b. Mu`awiya and ash-Shami – in `Uyun] from ar-Rida عليه السلام in a hadith wherein he said: One who claims that Allah does our acts then punishes us upon them, then he has believed in (lit. spoken by) jabr. And one who claims that Allah delegated (fawwada) the command (or, affair) of creation (al-khalq) and sustenance (ar-rizq) to His Hujja, then he has believed in tafwid. And the one who believes in jabr is a kafir. And the one who believes in tafwid is a mushrik.

http://www.tashayyu....fr-and-apostasy

Shaykh Saduq explains these in his book of i`tiqad.

#39 Hannibal

Hannibal

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,476 posts
  • Location:Location

Posted 18 February 2010 - 03:26 AM

Old post by an unregistered account I know, but just in case anyone reads this and gets the wrong idea.... What a horribly skewed translation and interpretation of these ahadith! They are referring to tafwid al-amr, delegation of the command, which is the one type of tafwid our ta'ifa believes in. That is, that if the Prophet (pbuh) prohibited or commanded something then that became recognized Shari`a. For instance, the salat were revealed as two rak`at each, but the Prophet (pbuh) increased them to four rak`at for zhuhr, `asr and `isha and three rak`at for maghrib, which is thus binding on us. There are a number of hadiths that talk about this.

The tafwid which is not true though, and is in fact shirk, is tafwid ar-rizq wa 'l-khalq, delegation of sustenance and creation. That is, the mufawwida ghulat believed that Allah created the Ma`sumeen (as) and then delegated to them the creating of the universe and providing sustenance to the creation (sort of like considering them to be demiurges). This is as said though, shirk.

[ 34907 ] 4 Ü æÚä Êãíã Èä ÚÈÏÇááå Èä Êãíã ¡ Úä ÃÈíå ¡ Úä ÃÍãÏ Èä Úáí ÇáÃäÕÇÑí ¡ Úä íÒíÏ Èä ÚãÑ ÇáÔÇãí ¡ Úä ÇáÑÖÇ ( Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ) Ü Ýí ÍÏíË Ü ÞÇá : ãä ÒÚã Ãä Çááå íÝÚá ÃÝÚÇáäÇ Ëã íÚÐÈäÇ ÚáíåÇ ¡ ÝÞÏ ÞÇá ÈÇáÌÈÑ ¡ æãä ÒÚã Ãä Çááå ÝæÖ ÃãÑ ÇáÎáÞ æÇáÑÒÞ Åáì ÍÌÌå ¡ ÝÞÏ ÞÇá ÈÇáÊÝæíÖ ¡ æÇáÞÇÆá ÈÇáÌÈÑ ßÇÝÑ ¡ æÇáÞÇÆá ÈÇáÊÝæíÖ ãÔÑß .

4 – And from Tamim b. `Abdullah b. Tamim from his father from Ahmad b. `Ali al-Ansari from Yazid b. `Umar ash-Shami [Burayd b. `Umayr b. Mu`awiya and ash-Shami – in `Uyun] from ar-Rida Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã in a hadith wherein he said: One who claims that Allah does our acts then punishes us upon them, then he has believed in (lit. spoken by) jabr. And one who claims that Allah delegated (fawwada) the command (or, affair) of creation (al-khalq) and sustenance (ar-rizq) to His Hujja, then he has believed in tafwid. And the one who believes in jabr is a kafir. And the one who believes in tafwid is a mushrik.

http://www.tashayyu....fr-and-apostasy

Shaykh Saduq explains these in his book of i`tiqad.


Mash'Allah. Jazzakum Allah Khair for the tradition.

#40 Muhammed Ali

Muhammed Ali

    Member

  • Mods
  • 5,489 posts
  • Location:London
  • Interests:Allah

Posted 19 February 2010 - 10:57 AM

[ 34907 ] 4 Ü æÚä Êãíã Èä ÚÈÏÇááå Èä Êãíã ¡ Úä ÃÈíå ¡ Úä ÃÍãÏ Èä Úáí ÇáÃäÕÇÑí ¡ Úä íÒíÏ Èä ÚãÑ ÇáÔÇãí ¡ Úä ÇáÑÖÇ ( Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ) Ü Ýí ÍÏíË Ü ÞÇá : ãä ÒÚã Ãä Çááå íÝÚá ÃÝÚÇáäÇ Ëã íÚÐÈäÇ ÚáíåÇ ¡ ÝÞÏ ÞÇá ÈÇáÌÈÑ ¡ æãä ÒÚã Ãä Çááå ÝæÖ ÃãÑ ÇáÎáÞ æÇáÑÒÞ Åáì ÍÌÌå ¡ ÝÞÏ ÞÇá ÈÇáÊÝæíÖ ¡ æÇáÞÇÆá ÈÇáÌÈÑ ßÇÝÑ ¡ æÇáÞÇÆá ÈÇáÊÝæíÖ ãÔÑß .

4 – And from Tamim b. `Abdullah b. Tamim from his father from Ahmad b. `Ali al-Ansari from Yazid b. `Umar ash-Shami [Burayd b. `Umayr b. Mu`awiya and ash-Shami – in `Uyun] from ar-Rida Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã in a hadith wherein he said: One who claims that Allah does our acts then punishes us upon them, then he has believed in (lit. spoken by) jabr. And one who claims that Allah delegated (fawwada) the command (or, affair) of creation (al-khalq) and sustenance (ar-rizq) to His Hujja, then he has believed in tafwid. And the one who believes in jabr is a kafir. And the one who believes in tafwid is a mushrik.

http://www.tashayyu....fr-and-apostasy

Shaykh Saduq explains these in his book of i`tiqad.


this means all those sunni ulama who believed in this are kaffir? the hadith is relied upon?

#41 lotfilms

lotfilms

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,676 posts
  • Location:The Ummah
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 19 February 2010 - 10:15 PM

(bismillah)
(salam)

this means all those sunni ulama who believed in this are kaffir? the hadith is relied upon?

Some of their ulema have other problems:

[ 34911 ] 8 ـ وفي ( الخصال ) عن أبيه ، عن سعد بن عبدالله ، عن علي بن إسماعيل الأشعري ، عن محمد بن سنان ، عن أبي مالك الجهني ، قال : سمعت أبا عبدالله ( عليه السلام ) يقول : ثلاثة لا يكلمهم الله يوم القيامة ولا ينظر إليهم ولا يزكيهم ، ولهم عذاب أليم : من ادعى إماما ليست إمامته من الله ، ومن جحد إماما إمامته من عند الله ، ومن زعم أن لهما في الاسلام نصيبا .



8 – And in al-Khisal from his father from Sa`d b. `Abdullah from `Ali b. Isma`il al-Ash`ari from Muhammad b. Sinan from Abu Malik al-Juhani. He said: I heard Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام saying: Three whom Allah will not speak to them on the day of the resurrection, and not look to them, and not purify them, and for them is a painful punishment: One who claims an imam whose Imamate is not from Allah, and one who denies an Imam whose Imamate is from Allah, and one who claims that (either of) them have a share in Islam.


====================

[ 34930 ] 27 ـ علي بن محمد الخزاز في ( الكفاية ) عن محمد بن علي ابن الحسين بن بابويه ، عن علي بن أحمد بن عمران ، عن محمد بن أبي عبدالله ، عن موسى بن عمران ، عن الحسين بن يزيد ، عن الحسن بن علي ابن أبي حمزة ، عن أبيه ، عن يحيى بن القاسم ، عن جعفر بن محمد ، عن آبائه ، عن النبي ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) قال : الأئمة بعدي اثنا عشر : أوّلهم علي بن أبي طالب ، وآخرهم القائم ـ إلى أن قال : ـ المقر بهم مؤمن ، والمنكر لهم كافر .

ورواه الصدوق بإسناده عن محمد بن أبي عبدالله الكوفي .

ورواه في ( عيون الأخبار ) مثله .



27 - `Ali b. Muhammad the silk dealer in al-Kifaya from Muhammad b. `Ali b. al-Husayn b. Babuwayh from `Ali b. Ahmad b. `Imran [`Ali b. Ahmad b. Muhammad b. `Imran the flour merchant – in al-Kifaya] from Muhammad b. Abi `Abdillah from Musa b. `Imran from al-Husayn b. Yazid from al-Hasan b. `Ali b. Abi Hamza [al-Husayn b. `Ali b. Abi Hamza – in al-Kifaya] from his father from Yahya b. al-Qasim [Yahya b. Abi ‘l-Qasim – in al-Kifaya] from Ja`far b. Muhammad from his fathers from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله. He said: The Imams after me are twelve. The first of them is `Ali b. Abi Talib and the last of them is the Qa’im –until he said: The one who is settled (?) with them is a believer, and the deniar of them is a kafir.
http://www.tashayyu....fr-and-apostasy


And there's many other hadiths like this.

wa salam

Edited by lotfilms, 19 February 2010 - 10:17 PM.




Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users